Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(P&H) 86737
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Rohit Kapoor, J
Ashish Gupta – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
CRM-M-32708-2026
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Edward Augustine George
For the Respondents: Prateek Gupta
Conditions imposed on an accused for foreign travel must be reasonable, proportionate, and directed at securing presence during trial, rather than acting as a mechanism for the recovery of disputed financial claims.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged an order from the trial court that imposed a condition to deposit Rs. 4.95 Crores as a pre-condition for traveling abroad in a pending criminal case involving alleged financial irregularities. The petitioner argued that such a condition was unreasonable, punitive, and violated the presumption of innocence under Art. 21 of the Constitution. The court observed that while it has the power to impose conditions to secure the presence of an accused, such conditions must not be onerous or intended to recover disputed debts without trial. The core issues involved the reasonableness of imposing a significant financial deposit (a percentage of the alleged fraud amount) as a condition for foreign travel and whether such a condition could be justified by the petitioner's lifestyle or the disputed nature of the bank's claim. The court held that criminal courts should not function as recovery agents to realize disputed dues. It emphasized that proportionality must guide conditions in individual cases, and mere past travel or large outstanding claims do not automatically justify exorbitant financial deposits as security for return. The court allowed the petition in part, modifying the impugned condition by reducing the required deposit amount to Rs. 50 lakhs while maintaining all other previously imposed conditions.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of facts and the nature of the impugned travel restriction. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 2. contentions of parties regarding bail conditions and liberty. (Para 9 , 10 , 11) |
| 3. court's reasoning on proportionality and modification of bail terms. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17) |
ROHIT KAPOOR, J. (Oral)
1. The instant petition has been filed under section 528 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (earlier section 482 Cr.P.C.) with the prayer for quashing the order dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure P-1), to the extent, the petitioner has inter alia been directed to deposit Rs. 4.95 Crores in the form of an FDR, which is approximately 7.5% of the alleged defaulted amount, while allowing the application for travelling abroad. Further prayer has been made to allow the petitioner to travel abroad with his daughter from 09.06.2026 to 30.06.2026, subject to the compliance of all the conditions imposed by the CBI Court vide the aforementioned order, except the impugned condition.
2. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-CBI has filed the reply on behalf of the said respondent, which is taken on record. Registry is directed to tag the same at the appropriate place.
3. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts required to be noticed for the adjudication of the instant petition are that the petitioner alongwith other co-accused stands implicated in FIR No.RC0512022S0007 dated 31.10.2022, registered at police station CBI, SCB/CHD, registered under sections 420 read with section 120-B IPC, and 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (subsequently deleted).
4. It transpires that the petitioner was the director of the co-accused company M/s Goldline Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. (‘GIPL’), which had obtained a term loan of Rs.25 crores from respondent No.2-Bank, which was subsequently reduced to Rs.19 crores, for construction of an affordable residential project. As per the allegations, the term loan was sanctioned on 20.12.2014, and an amount of Rs.18.97 crores was disbursed by the Bank between 28.02.2015 to 25.06.2015. Upon failure of the company to repay the loan, the same was declared as a Non-Performing Asset (‘NPA’) on 29.05.2018 and as ‘fraud’ on 16.01.2021, by the Bank.
5. It is alleged that the amount of loan was not used for the construction of the project and rather the funds were siphoned off and transferred to sister concerns. Further allegations are that corporate guarantor/mortgagor namely M/s Aerens Goldsouk International Limited (‘AGIL’) had pledged 5 shops as additional security/collateral claiming the same to be unencumbered. However, it was subsequently discovered that an agreement to sell qua the said shops had already been executed by the corporate guarantor/mortgagor in favour of one Mrs. Usha Gupta. A civil suit had already been initiated by Mrs. Usha Gupta for specific performance of the agreement to sell in the year 2013, however the said factum was concealed, when the term loan was sanctioned in favour of GIPL. One of the prerequisites for sanctioning of the term loan was a condition that GIPL should raise an amount of Rs.6 crores for the construction of the project, before disbursal of funds, however no such amount was raised.
6. It further transpires that the petitioner has approached this Court for quashing of the FIR and subsequent proceedings in CRM-M-10347-2025, in which notice regarding stay has been issued and the matter is admittedly pending for 20.07.2026.
7. The immediate cause for the petitioner to approach this Court by way of the instant petition, arises from the order dated 30.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Special Duty Magistrate, CBI Court, wherein the application No.IA/42/2026 filed by him, seeking permission to go abroad and visit various countries including Switzerland, France, UK and Italy, has been allowed, subject to the fulfillment of certain conditions, including the impugned condition, which are extracted hereunder for
